EDITORIAL: The Russian Economy is Collapsing

In 2008, nearly $130 billion flew out of Russia, erasing the modicum of inflows registered in 2006 and 2007. For its size, Russia as an investment destination pales in comparison to South Korea. Total equity portfolio inflow into Russia in 2009 was just $3.4 billion, according to World Bank data, making it the lowest of the big emerging markets by far. India, China and Brazil all registered inflows over $20 billion. A recent opinion poll by the Levada Centre shows that 22% of Russia’s adult population would like to leave the country for good, up from 7% in 2007. It is the highest figure since the collapse of the Soviet Union, when only 18% said they wanted to get out. Over 50% of Russian entrepreneurs said that they wanted leave the country. “From a macro perspective, I don’t want to be in Russia,” says Justin Leverenz, emerging markets portfolio manager at Oppenheimer Funds in New York. “From an investor’s point of view, Russian politics are far beyond what I’m able to analyze.”

Believe it or not, those words appear in a recent article in which the author is trying to put a positive spin on Russia. Can you imagine what Russia’s economic critics are saying these days?

The Russian stock and currency markets recently set two-year record lows. Capital flight for 2011 is already close to the level it reached in all of 2010. And it’s not even October yet. Instead of looking for new solutions and new leadership, Russia has just announced that Vladimir Putin will return to office as president for life.

Today, one Russian ruble is worth 0.0313 U.S. dollars. When Vladimir Putin was reelected to a second term in 2004, one ruble was worth 0.0351. Between 2004 and 2011 under Putin’s rule, Russia’s currency has lost over ten percent of its value.

The World Bank recently issued a dire warning in which it openly stated that Russia’s economy is entirely enslaved by the world price of crude oil and that, given the prospects for a new global recession, Russian debt could soar by a factor of five and anemic growth could be choked off entirely in the coming months.

Russia will ignore that warning.

The International Monetary Fund, by contrast, has warned the Putin regime that it must cut spending immediately or risk disastrous consequences when the inevitable economic downturn comes for Russia. Instead of heeding this advice, Russia is launching a massive program of military and civilian spending that puts the country recklessly on course for bankruptcy.

Russia will not heed that advice.

Meanwhile, Russia has purged from the ranks of government its leading and most-respected economics guru, Alexei Kudrin, who had been the voice of reason.

How come? Russia now is much more than it was in 1923 when USSR came into existence, and in 16th century when Tsarist Russia came into existence:) It has no wish actually to conquer anyone, only if you wish so:))

Dtard, Russia wants to reconquer its former imperial possessions, as for Russia being smaller in 1923, that’s not really true.

Due to the fact that “Russia” consisted of all SSR’s in that they were all in reality administered from Moscow for the benefit of Russia and not for the local populations.

As for Russia not wishing to conquer anyone, more lies.
Lets see, Chechnya, Ingushetia, Daghestan, Transdenister in Moldova, South Ossetia and Abkhazia in Georgia, the claims on Sevastopol, the Russian claims on and threats to the Baltics etc etc etc.

Last one In Europe did you say? Well, that’s an easy one : world war II wit invasion of Poland. I’ll grant you that Germany invade them first, but a few days lapse doesn’t really matter when you are on agressors side.

I know that treaty of Versailles ended the Polish unsuccessful invasion into Ukraine and Russia in 1919-1921.

Pray name me the peace treaty that ended the “war” of 1939 that you speak about, please-please. Otherwise please tell me, are we still at war with Poland? If both answers are negative, how can that be a war?

As to your inquiry about what was the last war Russia started, are you denying the fact that Russia invaded Ukraine in 1920 or so? And Georgia at about the same time? Or Poland in 1939? Or attacked Finland the same year (still keeps a part of it)? And who annexed Kazakstan, Uzbekistan and some other “stans?” And didn’t Russia invade Afghanistan in the 1970s? And Japan in 1945? And so on…

RV, fate of Ukraine in 1918-1919 is a long story, really. The only country that really invaded Ukraine, was Poland. They also killed dozens of thousands Ukrainiansduring that war. Russians then were split between Red and White guards, and Eastern Ukraine, as every other region with Russian population, was in the middle of the Russian Civil war.

As to Georgia, first thing that “independent Georgia” did (after instigating a war with Armenia) was invading Russia, trying to conquer Russian south, and backstabbing Whyte Guards during their fight with Bolsheviks.

Several years later Georgia was conquered by the same bolsheviks it helped in Russian south. I’d say they got what they asked for.

What part of southern Russia did Georgia invade?
What actually happened was the White Guards under Denikin as well as Bolshevik forces, invaded Georgia in 1918 , Denikin while attempting to recreate “the Holy and United Russia” which fatally undermined the anti-bolshevik forces by causing extrememe resentment amongst non Slavs and also non Russian Slavs, and the Bolsheviks while trying to export their new political BS and mass murder.

Sochi at that time was part of the Kutaisi governorship (as was Abkhazia) and was traditionally part of the Georgian kingdom. It was not until 1904 that the Tsar decided to make it part of the Black Sea governorship.

It is also interesting to note that the Sochi council requested to be taken into the republic of Georgia, rather than to be part of Russia.

Of course both the White and Red Russians ignored the wishes of the locals.

As for “helping the Bolsheviks” you really are a retarded little liar:

The conflict was preceded by a pro-Bolshevik revolt in Abkhazia that made the local post-revolution government, Abkhazian People’s Council, to request aid from the Democratic Republic of Georgia and to join it as an autonomous entity (June 8 1918). A Georgian force under Major General Giorgi Mazniashvili was deployed in the region and joined by an Abkhaz cavalry provided by local nobility. Mazniashvili repulsed a Bolshevik offensive from Sochi direction late in June and, following to the instructions from Abkhazian and Georgian authorities, advanced northward in order to liquidate a Bolshevik base which provided help to the Communist revolutionaries.
The Georgian military operation, encouraged also by a German military mission, resulted in the occupation of Adler (3 July), Sochi (6 July), and Tuapse (27 July) along the Black Sea coastline. Mazniashvili was soon ordered to take control of the Tuapse-Maikop railway line and coordinate his actions with the White Russian Kuban government and Denikin’s Volunteer Army waging an all-out war against the Red armies in South Russia.
Initially, Georgia regarded the White forces as allies against the common threats from the Bolshevist Moscow. This cooperation was, however, soon clouded by Denikin’s calls for the reunited “Great Russia” with the Caucasus as its integral part.

Andrew: “Sochi at that time was part of the Kutaisi governorship (as was Abkhazia) and was traditionally part of the Georgian kingdom.”

Reality: …the Tsar’s decree of December 25 1904, the region was transfered from the Sukhumi district (Kutaisi guberniya) to become part of the Black Sea guberniya

Reality: Georgians were a tiny minority not only in Sochi, but in Abkhazia too. In 1886 (three decades before the invasion) they constituted 0,9% of population of Abkhazia. Traditional part of the “Georgian kingdom”, huh?

Reality: A country named “Georgian kingdom” never existed. The ethnicity “Georgian”/ “Gruzin” was created by Russians, and there is no adequate translation for the phrase “ethnic Georgian” in Kartvel language. You can name every ethnicity in Georgia – “Kartvel”, “Mengrelian”, “Svan”, but “ethnic Georgian” is a pure nonsense. David IV was a Kartvel ruler, of course, not that of “Georgians” – he had no idea they exist. All these ethnicities of Georgia have different languages, culture, in some cases – religion.

Reality: Right now Kartvels in Georgia suppress their minorities (Mingrelians, Svans, Ajarians, Laz), their languages, their culture, religion. Trying to deny their very existence. This time they don’t cry “Sakartvelo for Kartvels” as in the 1990ies – they behave like Turks, just saying all are Kartvels in “Sakartvelo”. Because when you are called “Georgian” in “Georgia”, you are called Kartvel. This very effectively makes, say, Adjarians, with their own written language, religion, culture – “A subgroup of Kartvels”.

As for the population of Abkhazia, you forgot the Samurzaq’anoans who at 44.6% were the largest ethnic group, and who spoke Mingrelian, and were of Mingrelian, Apsua and Georgian descent.

The Mingrelians are descendants of several Colchian tribes and constitute one of the building blocks of the unified Georgian nation that emerged after the kingdoms of the west (Colchis) and east (Iberia) were united under Christianity in the middle of the first millennium AD. Early in the Middle Ages, Mingrelian aristocracy and clergy, later followed by laymen, adopted the national Georgian tongue as a language of literacy and culture. After the fragmentation of the Kingdom of Georgia in the 15th century, Mingrelia was an autonomous principality until being annexed by the Russian Empire in the 19th century.In several censuses under the Russian Empire and the early Soviet Union, Mingrelians were mistakenly considered a separate group, largely because at the time of the annexation Mingrelia was politically separate from the eastern Georgian regions, historical political and cultural centers of the Medieval Georgian Kingdoms. They were, however, reclassified under the broader category of Georgian in the 1930s. Currently, most Mingrelians identify themselves as a subgroup of the Georgian nation and have preserved many characteristic cultural features – including the Mingrelian language – that date back to the pre-Christian Colchian era when the modern-day ethnic group of Georgians had yet to consolidate into a nation, rather than a collection of regional tribes.
The first President of an independent Georgia, Zviad Gamsakhurdia (1939–1993), was a Mingrelian.[13] Therefore, after the violent Coup d’etat of December 21, 1991 – January 6, 1992, Samegrelo became the centre of a civil war, which ended with the defeat of Gamsakhurdia’s supporters.

Mingrelian, or Megrelian (მარგალური ნინა margaluri nina; ), is a Kartvelian language spoken in Western Georgia (regions of Samegrelo and Abkhazia), primarily by Georgians of Mingrelian origin. The language was also called Iverian (Georgian iveriuli ena) in the early 20th century. Because for more than a thousand years Mingrelian holds only a regional status within Georgia, the number of its speakers has been decreasing in favor of the national language.

The Svans (Georgian: სვანი Svani) are a group of Georgians[1][2] that mostly live in Svaneti, a region of Georgia speaking the Svan language. The self designated Svan is Mushüan, known to the ancient authors as Misimian.[3]

The Svans are usually identified with the Soanes mentioned by Greek geographer Strabo, who placed them more or less in the area still occupied by the modern-day Svans.
Until the 1930s, Mingrelians and Svans had their own census grouping, but were classified under the broader category of Georgian thereafter. They are Georgian Orthodox Christians, and were Christianized in the 4th-6th centuries. However, some remnants of old paganism have been maintained. Saint George (known as Jgëræg to the locals), a patron saint of Georgia, is the most respected saint. The Svans have retained many of their old traditions, including blood revenge (although this tradition has been declining over time, as law enforcement takes hold). Their families are small, and the husband is the head of his family. The Svan strongly respect the older women in families.

As for “Kartvels” suppressing Svans, or Mingrelians (or Armenians for that matter), more BS, the first president of Georgia after it’s independence from you Russian scum was Zviad Gamsakhurdiam, a Mingrelian, the current President Saakashvili is of Armenian extraction (from Javakheti).

And so on for the Laz.

All four languages are very closely related being part of the Kartvelian (South Caucasian) language family.

The Kartvelian language family consists of four closely related languages:
Svan (ლუშნუ ნინ, lušnu nin), with approximately 35,000–40,000 native speakers mainly in the northwestern mountainous region of Svaneti, Georgia, and in the Kodori Gorge of Abkhazia, Georgia.
Karto-Zan
Georgian (ქართული ენა, kartuli ena) with approximately 4.5 million native speakers, mainly in Georgia. There are Georgian-speaking communities in Russia, Turkey, Iran, Israel, and EU countries, but the current number and distribution of them are unknown.
Zan
Mingrelian (მარგალური ნინა, margaluri nina), with some 500,000 native speakers as of 1989, mainly in the western regions of Georgia of Samegrelo and Abkhazia (at present in Gali district only). The number of Mingrelian speakers in Abkhazia underwent a dramatic decrease in the 1990s as a result of heavy ethnic cleansing of the Georgian population, the overwhelming majority of which were Mingrelians. The Mingrelians displaced from Abkhazia are scattered elsewhere in the Georgian government territory, with dense clusters in Tbilisi and Zugdidi.
Laz (ლაზური ნენა, lazuri nena), with 220,000 native speakers as of 1980, mostly in the Black Sea littoral area of northeast Turkey, and with some 30,000 in Adjara, Georgia.

Ethnic minorities are far better treated in Georgia than in Russia by the way.

In addition, Mingrelians, Laz, and Svans despise Russians, particularly when Russian idiots such as yourself try and claim they are not “Georgian”.

I suggest you come here and try it. I will make sure you get a decent burial….

As for there never having been a united Georgian kingdom, well more BS, the united kingdom of the Georgians was called sakartvelos, and incorporated Abkhazia, Imereti, Khakheti, Shida Kartli, and all other regions of modern Georgia, as well as large areas of eastern Turkey, and up to Tuapse in what is now southern Russia.

I mean I know your historical knowledge is very poor, and you insist on spouting racist Russian BS all the time Dtard, but your pathetic dribble is really embarrassing to what is already a poor tradition of Russian education.

“Early in the Middle Ages, Mingrelian aristocracy and clergy, later followed by laymen, adopted the national Georgian tongue”

And so on.

Honey, how can I explain to you that there’s no “Georgian” language?

Why must I explain this, you live in SAKARTVELO, you speak KARTVEL language, why do you claim Mingrelians “adopted Georgian”? What is the “Georgian language”? What is the “Swiss language”? What is the “Belgian language”?

“Megrelian, is a Kartvelian language spoken in Western Georgia”

Now tell me then how comes the “Mingrelian language” and “Kartvelian language” are two parts of the South Caucasian language group? How comes a Kartvel would not understand Mingrelian language, if this language *is also Kartvelian*?

Right here, I have an Abkhaz friend in the IM on my computer, living in St.Petersburg, married to a Mingrelian girl. They call people like you “hard-foreheaded Tbilisi schauvinists”. They are two of the million of your former compatriots that left because ofyour first two “hard-foreheaded Tbilisi schauvinist” presidents.

Oh my, dear *Georgian*, but you don’t really understand why Mingrelians and Svans and Abkhaz don’t want to be “Kartuli”???

Listen Dtard, I live in an area of Tbilisi that is mainly Mingrelians, I have colleagues who are Svan and Laz, and my Godfather is Abkhaz.

I don’t know any Svans, Laz, or Mingrelians that do not consider themselves Georgian. Quite the opposite in fact.

You obviously don’t understand ethnography (what do you understand you sub simian Russian piece of rubbish?), for example many language families have multiple dialects or branches, the South Caucasian Kartvelian family is one of these.

Or are you unable to read sub simian?

For example, prior to the Ottoman empire the Greeks spoke different dialects depending on what part of the Greek world they lived in, some groups needed interpreters to talk to others, but it did not stop them being Greek.

Same with the Maori in New Zealand, or the Irish for that matter.
Then there are the Indians.

In the case of Georgian ethnicity, it has several sub groups.

Geographical subdivisions

Georgian youth in traditional costumes
The Georgians have historically been classified into various subgroups based on the geographic region which their ancestors traditionally inhabited.
Even if a member of any of these subgroups moves to a different region, they will still be known by the name of their ancestral region. For example, if a Gurian moves to Tbilisi (part of the Kartli region) he will not automatically identify himself as Kartlian despite actually living in Kartli. This may, however, change if substantial amount of time passes. For example, there are some Mingrelians who have lived in the Imereti region for centuries and are now identified as Imeretian or Imeretian-Mingrelians.
Last names from mountainous eastern Georgian provinces (such as Kakheti, etc.) can be distinguished by the suffix –uri (ური), or –uli (ული). Most Svan last names typically end in –ani (ანი), Mingrelian in –ia (ია), -ua (უა), or -ava (ავა), and Laz in –shi (ში).
Name Name in Georgian Geographical region Dialect
Imeretians იმერელი imereli Imereti Imeretian dialect
Kartlians ქართლელი kartleli Kartli Kartlian dialect
Megrelians მეგრელი megreli Megrelia Megrelian language
Svans სვანი svani Svaneti Svan language
Gurians გურული guruli Guria Gurian dialect
Adjarians აჭარელი achareli Adjara Adjarian dialect
Meskhetians მესხი meskhi Meskheti (Samtskhe) Meskhian dialect
Lechkhumeli ლეჩხუმელი lechkhumeli Lechkhumi Lechkhumian dialcet
Rachveli რაჭველი rachveli Racha Rachian dialect
Kakhetians კახელი kakheti Kakheti Kakhetian dialcet
Khevsurians ხევსური khevsuri Khevsureti Khevsurian dialect
Tushi თუში tushi Tusheti Tushetian dialect
Pshaveli ფშაველი pshaveli Pshavi Pshavian dialect
Mokhevians მოხევე mokheve Khevi Mokhevian dialect
Javakhians ჯავახი javakhi Javakheti Javakhian dialect
The 1897 Russian census (which accounted people by language), had Imeretian, Mingrelian and Svan languages separate from Georgian.[39] During the 1926 Soviet census, Mengrelians and Svans were accounted separately from Georgian. Mingrelian and Svan languages are both Kartvelian languages and are closely related to the national Georgian.

Now retard, my wife is Imeretian-Rachveli-Gurian by ancestry, until recently you Russian morons did not class her as Georgian, however the Imeretians, Svans, Mingrelians etc, have always classed themselves as part of the greater Georgian people.

The term “Georgian” is seen by people here as covering all the subgroups of the “Georgian” ethnic group, be they Kartvelian (Not Kartuli you brain dead racist little shite), Mingrelian, Imeretian, Gurian, Svanetian, Adjarian, Laz, Kakhetian, Svanetian etc.

I also know a great many Armenians and Russians who consider themselves “Georgian”

It is a bit like the term “English”, after all there are many different ethnic sub groups of the English, from Yorkshiremen, to people from the home counties etc.

Now, how about some apologies for the huge number of lies you have posted recently, ranging from “The Georgians helped the Bolsheviks” which they most certainly did not, to Mingrelians don’t consider themselves Georgian, which they most certainly do.

It is interesting to note that when the Russians attempted to create a “Mingrelian independence movement” that it was an abject failure due to the fact that the scum sent from Moscow to try and foment trouble had to run back to Moscow with their tails between their legs due to the extreme anger they received from Mingrelians.

After all “Georgia for Georgians” was most popular in Mingrelia, as was Zviad Gamsakhurdia.

Funny, Andrew, how you read a dozen of my posts, posted a dozen of answers, and did not understand that

I never said Laz, Mingrelians or even those three Jews who were too old to escape from from Tbilisi are not “Georgians”. I said they are not Kartuli – Kartvels, as you, Kartvels want them to be. As you, Kartvels, call them.

But it’s really ok for a man, suporting Saakashvili’s grip on the throat of Georgia, – to be stupid.

By the way, as to your question what treaty has ended the Soviet-Polish War of 1939, most historians agree it was so called Sikorski-Mayski Agreement of 1941, under which Russia (i.e., Stalin) agreed that the Soviet-German partition of Poland was null and void: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sikorski-Mayski_Agreement

No, I see no difference. If you are trying to say that a “treaty” is somehow different from “agreement,” I see no valid point. They use different words, such as also “act,” “pact” and so on; but the substance is what matters. Mayski-Sikorski Agreement ended the hostilities.

After all, you asked to name a war that Russia started and I gave you several examples. Or are you saying that Stalin did not attack Poland?

I’m trying to say that there was no war between Russia and Poland, Russia and Estonia, Russia and Lithuania.

I was not asking whom did Stalin attack.

I was asking for an example of a *war* Russia started. So far you did not name any.

“annexed Kazakstan, Uzbekistan and some other “stans?””

RV, really, but you just took a wrong area – the non-USian history. To understand why you should not discuss it, just check the “Kazakhstan” “” article and when the country cameinto existence, and then please ask how could Russia “annex” it.

Local population was Poles (ethnic Poles, in large part, besides practically everyone being Polish citizens anyway). “Hatred” was only from the Ukrainian nationalists, and they had no love for the Soviets neither, and of course from the communist traitors (of all kinds: Polish, Jewish, Ukrainian, Belarusian, other). And the Soviets occuppied even the territories that belong to Poland even today, such as the city of Bialystok.

And the war was World War II. In some cases, Polish forces fought the German and Soviet invaders at once (not separately), and in the first 2 years of the war the Polish resistance fought both occupiers, who coordinated their operations (intersting thing to note: the NKVD was much better in suppressing it than their Polizei collegues, even http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leopold_Okulicki was captured by the Soviets in 1941, Wikipedia doesn’t mention it but he got totally broken under torture and told them all and signed everything). The war was not declared formally by Poland for political reasons only (the British didn’t want the Soviets to join the German side openly).

For that matter, the war in Georgia was also not declared formally by the Russian side. And same for Afghanistan (Amin was never informed they are going to kill him, thought it’s “counter-revolution” and even phoned to Moscow for help), and during the wars in Chechnya even a martial law was never declared anywhere in Russia, which is a violation of Russian constitution (army can be used for combat without at least the state of emergency), but of course in Russia the constitution is a piece of paper and nobody cares.

“For that matter, the war in Georgia was also not declared formally by the Russian side.”

Bobby, because it was not a war. It was a peace enforcement, after attack “on a city as a city”, (per OSCE monitors) and international peacekeepers (invited by the Georgian government) by the Georgian government.

A peacekeeping operation ended with Georgian army beaten off the land they vowed to not enter by force many times before. The government stayed the same (because it was not a war), the economy did not suffer (more that it was necessary to defeat the Georgian army), even the army of Georgia was spared by Russians, and nobody bombed and destroyed Georgian army when it retreated (ran) to Tbiliso – though Russian air force had every chance to do so with AA defences of Georgia in ruins after just 2-3 days of war.

No moron, the treaty of Versailles ended world war 1.
It was signed in 1919 and was a treaty between the (western) Allies and Germany, Russia was not included as they had surrendered to Germany in 1917.

The treaty liberated Poland from several centuries of Russo-German occupation.

As for the origins of the 1919-1920 war between Poland and Russia, that was V.I.Lenin’s orders for “Target Vistula” which aimed at the eradication of the hard won independence of the former imperial territories.

Among the aims of the Bolsheviks was to drive through the Eastern and Central Europe and support the Revolutions in Germany and Austria-Hungary.(Davies, p. 29) The Bolshevik Russian forces did not anticipate any serious opposition on the way and saw the states of Poland, Belarus and Lithuania as mere ephemerides, unable do defend their own temporary borders. However, it is unlikely that the Soviets really expected to reach the Vistula. The military orders were full of propaganda. The main goal of the operation was likely to see how much territory can be captured in the chaotic western areas before any serious opposition arises.(Davies, p. 12 and p. 13)
Finally the first Polish-Soviet clashes happened in the area of the towns of Bereza Kartuska (February 14) and Mosty, where both armies clashed in a series of skirmishes. The Bolshevik offensive came to a halt by late February and it became apparent that the Red Army will not break through the Polish lines by half-hearted attacks. Both the Soviet offensive and the Polish counter-attack started at the same time, which resulted with an increasing number of troops being brought to the area. In April the Bolsheviks captured Grodno and Wilno, but were soon pushed out by the Polish counter-offensive.

Aftermath

The Estonian and Polish armies proved to be far more difficult opponents than the Red Army had assumed. The Pskov Offensive of the Estonian Petseri Battle Group destroyed the Estonian Red Army, captured Pskov, and expelled the Soviet forces from the territory between Estonia and the Velikaya River on 25 May. The 7th and 15th Red Armies began a counteroffensive in Ingria and in the north of Pskov in July 1919, which regained most of the lost territories of Petrograd and northern Pskov regions. With the arms provided by Britain and France, and the operational support by the Estonian Army, Estonian Navy, and Royal Navy, the White Russian Northwestern Army began the Offensive Operation “White Sword” on 28 September 1919 with the aim of capturing Petrograd.[5] The Northwestern Army approached to ten miles (16 km) from the city, but the 7th Red Army repulsed the White Russian troops back into Estonia.[4]
Although the orders for the Target-Vistula operation were never withdrawn, the Russian plans were soon made obsolete by growing Polish resistance and eventually by the Polish counter-offensive in April. Unable to accomplish their objectives, the Red Army withdrew from their positions and started a reorganisation. The Polish-Soviet War has begun.

The journalist didn’t understand the report (actually most failed) about it. But – “everybody has internets” indeed, and everyone can read it. Let’s do it, okay?

And so, even regarding the very “marked the beginning of the large-scale armed conflict in Georgia” thing, the author absolutely manipulates the message, which really goes as following:

3.) The shelling of Tskhinvali by the Georgian armed forces during the night of 7 to 8 August 2008 marked the beginning of the large-scale armed conflict in Georgia, yet it was only the culminating point of a long period of increasing tensions, provocations and incidents.

The second part of the sentence entirely changes its meaning, no? Especially since the authors clearly then spent a lot of time putting things in context (even reaching several hundred years back).

And in what the BBC called “evidence of a lower-level military build-up”, the report says the following regarding the Russian intervention before the conflict (including arming and training of the rebels and illegal presence on Georgian soil of Russian irregulars and even “some” regulars) as well as the begging of the Russian aggression (and “the Russian official information” lies about it):

16.) The Mission is not in a position to consider as sufficiently substantiated the Georgian claim concerning a large-scale Russian military incursion into South Ossetia before 8 August 2008. However, there are a number of reports and publications, including of Russian origin, indicating the provision by the Russian side of training and military equipment to South Ossetian and Abkhaz forces prior to the August 2008 conflict. Additionally there seems to have been an influx of volunteers or mercenaries from the territory of the Russian Federation to South Ossetia through the Roki tunnel and over the Caucasus range in early August, as well as the presence of some Russian forces in South Ossetia, other than the Russian JPKF battalion, prior to 14.30 hours on 8 August 2008. Also it seems that the Russian air force started its operations against Georgian targets, including those outside South Ossetian administrative boundaries, already in the morning of 8 August, i.e. prior to the time given in the Russian official information.

Now, about “The report states that while Russia’s initial actions in fighting back against attacks on its personnel in South Ossetia were justified”, it’s just not true (the report just could not neither confirm or refute it), and skips entirely the damning part regarding Russian lies of “genocide” and massive separatist civilian losses that also served as justification. You know what this chapter’s very name is?

IV. No justification of Russian use of force as fulfilment of the peacekeeping mission

“In the course of the armed conflict, subsequently named a “five-day war”, and its immediate aftermath, the Russian side justified their military intervention by their intention to stop an allegedly ongoing genocide of the Ossetian population by the Georgian forces, and also to protect Russian citizens residing in South Ossetia and the Russian contingent of the Joint Peacekeeping Forces deployed in South Ossetia in accordance with the Sochi Agreement of 1992. Russia claimed that in the morning of 8 August 2008 two Russian peacekeepers were killed and five wounded by the Georgian attacks on the peacekeepers’ premises in Tskhinvali. Georgia denied having
conducted deliberate attacks against the Russian peacekeepers, arguing that the Georgian troops entering Tskhinvali were fired at from the Russian peacekeepers` compounds and that they had to return fire. The Mission does not have independent reports which could substantiate or deny the allegations of either side. Albeit, taking into account the existing dangerous conditions on the ground, casualties among the Russian PKF personnel were likely. As far as Russian and South Ossetian accusations of genocide are concerned, they became less frequent in later months as the alleged Georgian intent for genocide could not be proven. The number of casualties among the Ossetian civilian population turned out to be much lower than claimed at the beginning. Russian officials stated initially that about 2 000 civilians had been killed in South Ossetia by the Georgian forces, but later on the number of overall South Ossetian civilian losses of the August 2008 conflict was reduced to 162.”

And anyway, what Russia could ONLY do in case if there were such attacks (and this could not be even factually confirmed) and be justified:

“d) Conclusions: Lack of necessity and proportionality

As an act of self-defence against the attack on the Russian military bases, the only admissible objective of the Russian reaction was to eliminate the Georgian threat for its own peacekeepers. The expulsion of the Georgian forces from South Ossetia, and the defence of
South Ossetia as a whole was not a legitimate objective for Russia, because Russia could not rely on collective self-defence in favour of South Ossetia, as will be shown below. The admissible Russian objective was therefore limited. The military reaction of Russia went beyond the repulsion of the Georgian armed attack on the Russian bases and was thus not necessary. Russia mainly targeted military objectives, and at least some of the targeted military objectives were related to the Georgian attack in South Ossetia. Nevertheless, Russian military support for the use of force by Abkhazia against Georgia cannot be justified in this context. The bombing of large parts of the upper Kodori Valley was in no relation to any potential threat for the Russian peacekeepers in South Ossetia (see below). The same applies to the posting of the ships in the Black Sea. An impartial
observer, putting himself in the place of Russia, would not have qualified the Russian reaction as reasonably related to the objective of halting the Georgian attack on the Russian peacekeepers stationed in South Ossetia. The means employed by Russia were not in a reasonable relationship to the only permissible objective, which was to eliminate the threat for Russian peacekeepers. In any case, much of the destruction (see Chapter 5 “Military Events in 2008”) after the conclusion of the ceasefire agreement is not justifiable by any means. According to international law, the Russian military action taken as a whole was therefore neither necessary nor proportionate to protect Russian peacekeepers in South Ossetia.”

I guess the BBC journo was not “an impartial observer”, or maybe was just lazy. That’s bad journalism.

And if you’re interested in truth, it is also followed by the next chapter, demolishing another Russian claim – of the “mirotvortsy reinfrocements” (as the Russian invaders called themselves): “IV. No justification of Russian use of force as fulfilment of the peacekeeping mission”.

With the very next chapters of “Part 4: Use of force by Russia against Georgia” being as follows:
V. No justification of the use of force by invitation of the South Ossetian authorities
VI. No justification of the use of force by collective self-defence
VII. No justification of the use of force as “humanitarian intervention”
VIII. No justification of the use of force as action to rescue and protect nationals abroad

A small correction. It was in the chapter “III. No justification of the use of force as self-defence” – the chapter “IV. No justification of Russian use of force as fulfilment of the peacekeeping mission” was about demolishing Russian other claims.

Don’t pretend to be so stupid, as I said it was the ONLY point where Georgia did really wrong, when they answered the rebel attacks with inproportionate means. And it did NOT justify Russian invasion at all (as you can see even in all the chapters titled “no justification” – speaking about the Russian side’s arguments).

@“Russia had the right to defend its peacekeepers, using military means proportionate to the attack”.

And to do this and only only. Anyway, the attack (sparked by a tank shell that killed a rebel mortar spotter on the roof of their barracks) ended already on the 1st day after just few hours, when all Russian armoured vehicles that drove from this compound to engage the Georgians were eliminated and the main barracks got shelled. The Russians there hid in the basements, requested a ceasefire and to be allowed to evacuate their wounded, and they got it. And then it ended. The other Russian peacekeepers elsewhere were not attacked at all.

And so, regarding this argument of yours: “Conclusions: Lack of necessity and proportionality”. (See above.)

Same for the other Russian attempts at justification, mostly outright lies. But if you want, you can defend of how YOU were lied to by a bunch of rich criminals for just some stupid outdated imperial ideas and Putin’s personal animosity towards Misha, instead of being outraged how hundreds of Russian soldiers got killed or maimed (such fun, and notice how I don’t even except from you sympathy for more than 200 dead Georgian civilians and thousands of new refugees, just for your fellow Russians), how it damaged Russia’s international standing and got NOTHING for Russian people in return, that is aside of some spoils of looting by North Ossetian and Chechen bandits if you want to be proud of this – and besides two colonies that now have to be financed, and most of this money is then outright stolen by the local, foreign gangsters (when not looting they are smuggling), it’s your choice. You know, just as it was your own choice to vote for Yelstin, twice, and then for his chosen successor from the organisation that is directly responsible for the systematic murder and other repression of millions of innocent Russian people.

I never said “Tagliavini is wrong”. The report said “not justified”, many times, in the chapter names, in the body, in the conclusions, and said “justified”.

And just let me quote what the report said about Russian internal policies (which I quoted already), because you should care more about Russia, if you live in Russia, also speaking of “an indiscriminate attack on the town” (Russian indiscriminate attacks in Georgia were also discussed, in more detail):

“Russia had suppressed its own case of separatism in Chechnya with a maximum of military violence and had refused external criticism in regard to massive human rights violations during the Chechen wars as interference in its sovereignty.” -Page 26 (Relations between Georgia and Russia: Growing Confrontation 2004 – 2008).

What about it? What about the “massive human rights violations” of Russian citizens? Why there was no outrage in Russia? Just because your TV told you to CHEER it. Like when Budanov, a so-called “Hero of Russia”, was shown personelly ordering artillery fire on the village Duba-Yurt on the Christmas Eve of 2000, saying to the TV camera that it’s “Christmas presents for the Chechens” (and even has beaten one of his junior officers for refusing to fire HE shells at civilian houses, and this honorable officer was then kept in the earth pit for Chechen prisoners as Budanov was murdering and looting when he seized the village), and it was shown nationally as a gloriously heroic deed. But hey, what was YOUR reaction to the absolute destruction of Grozny, once the biggest city in the entire North Caucasus?

dymasz, indeed everybody has an internet and the whole world could see, sh#$%ty, dirty, drunk russian soldiers stealing black and white TV sets and toilet seats from the Georgian population that invaded. THAT IS THE IMAGE OF RUSSIA THAT WILL STAY FOR EVERY IN THE MINDS OF THE FREE WORLD…

It’s nice to know how these dirty drunk Russian soldiers were able to easily kick butts of those brave and sober Georgian soldiers over and over just for fun, for 5 days, going to Tbilisi through Gori and back, until Sarkozy came and asked to stop the fun:)

I believe the brave sober Georgian soldiers were just too sober and brave to actually defend Misha.

dymasz, dymasz, don’t flatter yourself, nobody wants to conquer russia, that sh@#$%t hole that nobody even wants. Russia is slowly rotting from within and that what the West wants. Nobody wants to invest in russia either; remember the disgusting treatment mr. putin gave BP, but, apparently BP took a sweet revange by withdrawing 5 billion British Pounds from that russian scam called ‘skolkovo’ – a ‘russian Silocon Valley’ – PLEASE….

This is perhaps the most poorly argued economic outlook of Russia, or any country for that matter, that I have ever read. Not only do the indicators cited barely give a glimse of the overall macro economy, they barely matter. In fact, Russia, Ukraine and Kazakhstan, for example, have a favourable outlook in the USDA agricultural outlook over the next decade and are cited to become the Black sea block as one of the largest wheat exporting regions in the world given alternative sources reaching capacity coupled with prospective growth in world food demand. Remarkable progress has further been made in the MSME sector in Russia, finance and banking, the overall debt structure, and democratic progress. Fine, I would argue that Gorbachev was a far more graceful and democratic leader, but there is no comparison between Yeltsin and Putin. Doomed?? Based on what? Natural reserves of oil and resource wealth, a well educated population, agricultural potential. It sounds more to me like personal vendetta.

Actually most of the economy has already collapsed – if by that you define an economy as the activity that creates wealth: what we seem to have here are three things:

An oil and natural resource extraction process that provides external grease for the machine.

The residual economy mining the remaining technical and human resources that somehow survived the Soviet Union – exporting old line Military hardware, equipment somewhat updated with stolen technology, but mostly running on the momentum left over with little new being created.

Everything else which is barely able to keep the rest going, including a population that can be barely fed, or lives off of the crumbs the extraction economy gives them.

In a way it looks like the economy of a sugar – slave economy of a 18th century Caribbean island, except the population (slaves) were a vital resource. Most of the current population of Russia is superfluous to the two so called productive economies. Could this be the reason (along with historical inertia) that the rulers can ignore and/or brutalize their own people without fear of reprisal?

And
As you say In 2007 (when Putin was the president) 7% of Russians wanted to leave the country. Now (when he is not) the number is 22%?
Well, wait a while, comrades!
Putin is coming back. everything will be all right.

You are confusing economy, finances and stock markets.
Real economy – industries, agriculture, transportation, mining.
Finances – state and private
And stock markets – speculations.
First two are connected, second and third are usually connected in developed countries. But in Russia most of stocks are not traded at all.
So characteristics that define whether Russian economy is rising or falling are industrial growth, energy production and consumption, jobs in industry et.c.
And by the way, cheap currency is boon for Russia. Devaluation should be done at least 6 month earlier, but at least they do it now. Isn’t China usually blamed for cheap yuan, as ‘unfair’ way of competition?

What do you mean by the expression “so called” developed countries? I believe, on your list, you are referring to the U.S., Britain, France, and Japan. Are you implying that they are not really developed and are only called so, presumably falsely? What exactly do you mean?

And , then, about “de-industrialization.” Yes, all these countries make fewer cars that they did back in 2000. Has it ever occurred to you that the reason for that is lack of demand? Everybody has cars, an average family in the U.S. has more than 2 now. The quality is noticeably, sharply better, so the cars serve longer and require less frequent replacement. So, why would we make almost 13 million cars in the U.S. when only under 8 million can be sold?

Just don’t forget “lack of demand” is never the cause. It just cannot be. Never ever. When there’s money, and confidence there’s demand. Lack of Chinese money, lack of confidence in what America has been doing since 2001 is the reason. Lack of wish to spend anything on expensive American goods is a mere consequence.

BTW, it’s quite strange to see how desperate US politicians are trying to revive economics by imposing a banning import duties on Chinese goods.

Yes, lack of demand. If you knew something about how the capitalist economy works, you would know. Nobody yet repealed the business cycle. You are right, the causes for this lack of demand can be various, including lack of confidence. A lot of people were spending like crazy, and this was fueled by the housing bubble. Now they realize they need to pay off their debts and to save more. And isn’t that what you called for — to buy 1 TV set in 4 years, not 4 TV sets in one.

As to those “youths” (some are actually older), I have no pity, just contempt, you got my sentiment right. Don’t get me wrong, they have an absolute right to protest so long as they don’t obstruct traffic and don’t damage anybody’s property. But they have no agenda, no policy, no program, other than to scream obscenities and to denounce capitalism. And of course they want taxpayers to underwrite their leisurely ways.

But they have no marketable skills and no desire to do hard and/or low wage work, which is available. Every large store has a notice on its door looking to hire sales clerks. Most restaurants want waiters, busboys, cooks, bartenders, dishwashers. Hotels have jobs, farms have jobs, long distance truck drivers are perpetually in demand. Of course, all of these are hard, exhausting and often low paying jobs. And that would be beneath these protesters. They wouldn’t stoop that low. They’d rather be unemployed and demand handouts.

They went to college, spent years there studying history, political science, women studies, sociology, art history, creative writing, ancient languages, cultural anthropology and similar stuff for which the demand in the marketplace is extremely low. Now, they are surprised there are no jobs. Illegal aliens all have jobs because they are not afraid of hard work. Most working age legal immigrants are also employed. People with real education (such as engineering, computers, etc.) and skills have jobs. But these “protesters” don’t. Why? Is it all Wall Street’s fault as they would have us believe? I think not. It’s their own fault.

“If you knew something about how the capitalist economy works” – here RV did not finish reading my post:))

“You are right, the causes for this lack of demand can be various, including lack of confidence… And isn’t that what you called for…” – here he did:)))

“to scream obscenities and to denounce capitalism… taxpayers to underwrite their leisurely ways. ” – they denounce banks that *abuse* capitalism. They denounce the government that bails out banks. They *are* taxpayers – small businesses that can not take any loans no more, or must get loans for 8%, and that go belly up in the States now. And the government spends *their money* to support banks. I thought it was obvious, now it turns out it is not to you.

“they have no marketable skills and no desire to do hard and/or low wage work, which is available… They’d rather be unemployed and demand handouts.” – what you describe is actually socialism, not capitalism. How did America suceed in raising a socialist generation?:)) (but I’ll tell you more, same goes on in Britain, Greece, Italy, etc). West is socialist, China is capitalist, yes.

“history, political science, women studies, sociology, art history, creative writing, ancient languages, cultural anthropology and similar stuff for which the demand in the marketplace is extremely low” – it’s quite sad that educational system in the States is so unbalanced. Socialism?

“Illegal aliens all have jobs because they are not afraid of hard work.” – Americans are afraid of hard work? Isn’t it the reason why the US produces cars no more?

“People with real education (such as engineering, computers, etc.) and skills have jobs.” – I feel I know your professionnow:)) But seriously, can Americans compete with Asians and Russians here?I mean, studying engineering or IT demands more efforts than “woman studies”, don’t you think? If Americans are not going to study well, they will be very bad engineers…

Actually Russians are very very bad engineers, as anyone who has ever seen a Russian building such as an apartment block, hospital, or hotel can attest.

Not to mention Russian aircraft that fall from the sky, Russian warships like the Kirov that kill their own crews through radiation poisoning, and tanks such as the T-72/80/90 series which are considered to be deathtraps by their crews.

We live in a globalized world, so cars can be exported, well, British, French, American cars. So lack of internal demand is not an excuse. As we can see, global production of cars has been steadily rising – no problems with globals demand.

We don’t live in a sufficiently globalized world. For cars, specifically, imports are difficult because of high tariffs imposed by many countries. American auto industry has a lot of unused capacity right now; don’t you think they would utilize it now if they had customers to sell to. Remember, each car sold is a profit made.

Anyway, stagnation of sales and slowdown in production are signs of terrible deflation. Doesn’t it mean that economy is in trouble. Finances are living in their own parallel universe inflating bubbles, while real economy of western countries dies slowly.
Same situation with cars, nuclear plants, space launches, ships built et.c. everything is moving to Asia. Russia gets a fairly small share in that process, but her industrial situation is still improving rather then worsening.

BTW, the “foreign” brands such as VW, Citroen, BMW, Land Rover etc are not really “produced” in Russia, the parts come from overseas, including the major assemblies, and the final assembly is done in Russia to avoid said duties.

No way, honey, it is not “artificially” propped, it is very *efficiently* propped:)

Most EU countries would sell their souls to just have the possibility to protect their industry like this. The US is trying to protect from Chinese goods right now. France sponsors it’s argiculture. Everybody does.

Georgia doesn’t, and I bet you know why:)))

The law says that on the 5th year of existence of a factory in Russia 50+% must be produced, not just assembled, in Russia, you were lied to:)))

dymasz, dymasz, the whole civilized world should protect itself from russian infestation – by the way dymasz, the whole discussion about ancient Georgia and primitive russia may be sum up with one sentence: when the Georgians were reading the Bible the poor russian baboons were still sitting on the trees. Georgia adopted Christianity in 330 AD and the royal house of Bagrations was established in the year 800 – it makes the Bagrations the oldest christian royal house in the world . The Bagrations intermarried with the Spanish Burbons, the Hohenzollerns, even the russian pretender George is a mixture of Bagrations, Romanovs, Hohenzollers, etc… – Russia, though, stayed barbaric for another 700 years. Do I have to remind you, dymasz, that the Russia history started with Romanovs so it 300 years plus 80 years of communism and now the total desintegration. Whoops, I forgot that putin plans to create Eurasian Union the soviet style good luck!!

This article does not cite any references or sources. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed.

Anyway, that aside, unlike racist Russian Slavs such as yourself, the Georgians don’t care that the Bagratid dynasty had it’s origins in Armenian (After all the Tsars were predominantly German by ancestry), what they care about is that the Bagratid dynasty was patriotic, became part of the Georgian national culture, and by constant marriage are now thoroughly Georgian.

After all, all Georgians know that the family originated in Armenia around 2000 years ago, but that it also became Georgianised around 500 years ago.

This is quite normal, after all, technically speaking the British Royal Family is Germano-Greek.

Unfortunately Dtard, you are a racist little pig.

According to a family legend, taken down by the 11th century Georgian chronicler Sumbat Davitis-Dze,[1] and supplied much later by Prince Vakhushti Bagrationi (1696–1757) with chronological data, the ancestors of the dynasty traced their descent to the biblical king and prophet David and came from Palestine around 530 AD. Tradition has it that of seven refugee brothers of the Davidic line, three of them settled in Armenia and the other four arrived in Kartli (a major Georgian region also known as Iberia by Classical authors) where they intermarried with the local ruling houses and acquired some lands in hereditary possession. One of the four brothers, Guaram (died in 532), allegedly gave an origin to a line subsequently called Bagrationi after his son Bagrat.[2] A successor, Guaram, was installed as a presiding prince of Kartli under the Byzantine protectorate and bestowed, on this occasion, with the Byzantine court title of Kouropalates[3] in 575.[4] Thus, according to this version, began the dynasty of the Bagratids, who ruled until 1801.[5] This tradition had been given a general acceptance until the early 20th century.[6] While the Jewish origin, let alone the biblical descent of the Bagratids, has been largely discounted by modern scholarship, the issue of their origin still remains controversial. Several Soviet-era historians of Georgia developed a view summarized by N. Berdzenishvili and et al. in their standard reference book on the history of Georgia:
“ The illustrious dynasty of the Bagrationi originated in the most ancient Georgian district – Speri (today İspir).[7] Through their farsighted, flexible policies, the Bagrationi achieved great influence from the sixth through eighth centuries. One of their branches moved out to Armenia, the other to Iberia, and both won for themselves the dominant position among the other rulers of Transcaucasia.[8] ”

The Bagratid domains in Tao-Klarjeti, c. 780-1000
Many modern scholars, however, question the above version, referring to a more complex analysis of primary Armenian and Georgian sources. Cyril Toumanoff’s research affirms that the Georgian Bagratids branched out of the Armenian Bagratid dynasty in the person of Adarnase, whose father Vasak (son of Ashot III the Blind, presiding prince of Armenia from 732 to 748) passed to Kartli following an abortive uprising against Arab rule in 772. Adarnase’s son, Ashot I, attained to the principality of Kartli in 813 and thus founded the last royal house of Georgia. Accordingly, the legend of Davidic origin of the Georgian Bagratids was a further development of the earlier claim entertained by the Armenian dynasty, as given in the work of the Armenian author Moses of Khorene.[9] Once the Georgian branch, who had quickly acculturated in the new environment,[10] assumed royal power, the myth of their biblical origin helped to assert their legitimacy and emerged as a main ideological pillar of the millennium-long Bagrationi rule in Georgia.[11]
Although certain, generation by generation, history of the Bagrationi dynasty begins only in the late 8th century, Toumanoff has demonstrated that the first Georgian branch of the Bagratids may be traced back as far as the 2nd century AD, when we hear them ruling over the princedom of Odzrkhe in what is now southern Georgia.[12] The Odzrkhe line, known in the medieval annals as the Bivritianis, lasted until the 5th century AD and they cannot be considered as the direct ancestors of the later Bagratids who eventually restored Georgian royal authority.[13]

Ford and GM can’t export to China. The tariffs for cars there are huge. But they can assemble and sell them there, which they do. We are not globalized enough indeed because the international trade is driven as much by taxes and tariffs as it is by other factors. There should be no tariffs or other obstacles to free trade anywhere

The Chernobyl disaster is a synonime of russia; its ‘technology’, ‘progress, ‘modernisation’ and absolute cosmic barbarity and stupidity. Dymasz you forgot to mention that the communist gerontocracy of kremlin sent 1 million young soviet soldiers to clean up Chernobyl with their ‘bare hands’ and all million of them died horrific deaths…..

When you are talking about primitive Chinese and Russian contraption, please don’t call them “reactors.” It’s offensive and unfair to real reactors. We all know from Chernobyl what kind of stuff Russia builds.

The reason for U.S. building only one reactor is political. Public and most politicians are flatly opposed to nuclear energy, for it’s perceived lack of safety and concerns regarding disposal of used fuel. I think it’s nuts and that it is clearly safe (when made well, not like in Russia or China), but mine is a small minority’s view. Germany has a similar public opposition and will decommission all its plans in 10 years or so,

News flash for you. When public is opposed to something, politicians in normal countries cannot proceed. President Obama happens to support nuclear energy, but unlike Putin he cannot imprison or shoot those who disagree. Democracy is very inconvenient. Maybe, one day you find out, when and if you have one.

RV, but you really miss the point: Fukushima I was built by the General Electric.

“The reactors for Units 1, 2, and 6 were supplied by General Electric, those for Units 3 and 5 by Toshiba, and Unit 4 by Hitachi. All six reactors were designed by General Electric.[4][5] Architectural design for General Electric’s units was done by Ebasco.”

No built-in protection from tidal waves? Well, but there’s hardly any oceans around the US, they never need any such protection there.

True. But of course it was an event which happens once in 1,000 years.and it was not designed for a catastrophic situation like that. There was protection against waves, just not so gigantic ones because the likelihood of such enormous tsunami was considered negligible. There is always a cost benefit trade-off. That may be a reason the public is so hostile to nuclear power.

dymasz, dymasz, why then 80% of russians live in abject poverty, especially those east of the ural, where only infrastrucure are the good all familiar gulags, without running water, electricity or gas. I saw a french documentary about people of Siberia, they eat meat ONCE a year. No wonder, they are waiting for Chinese with impatience……

dymasz, dymasz, your statement makes everybody accept the fact that the good russian is an HIV positive russian…have a gulp of russian contaminated samogon, get high on Afghan heroin and, enjoy a tin of ‘belka i strelka’ you know, that dog food, a staple diet of a ‘heroic russian army’……

New Russian reactors have quality and safety standards exceeding majority of old and outdated American ‘contraptions’, thats why Rosatom is lobbying enforcing high safety requirements in IAEA, that would mostly harm competitors. .

The Russian Federal Nuclear Agency (Rosatom, formerly Minatom), has decided to extend the operation of nuclear power plants (NPPs) that have surpassed their projected-engineered life spans. Many scientists, experts and NGOs maintain that such practice by Rosatom is economically unjustifiable, environmentally dangerous – to say nothing of illegal.

Executive summary
Russia is actively implementing a programme to extend the lifetime of nuclear power reactors beyond their engineered life span of 30 years. So far, the extension procedures have been implemented on the oldest reactors found in Russia: first generation VVERs and RBMKs, the Chernobyl-type reactors.

The lifetime extensions, especially on first generation reactors, do not guarantee safe operation because these reactors are of an inherently unsafe design, which cannot be improved through upgrades and modernisation. The economics of the lifetime extension are also questionable, and in most cases not feasible.

The extension is carried out in violation of Russian environmental legislation: none of the projects have undergone legally required state environmental assessments.
Conclusions
Russia’s nuclear agency intends to increase the share of nuclear energy from the current 16 percent to 25 percent by the year 2030. The funding for these plans is still vague, however.
To compensate for the lack of new capacity and to retain nuclear power as an important energy source, as well as maintain expertise in this field, Russia launched an extensive programme to prolong the lifetime of its older reactors. Not only does prolongation of the engineered live-spans of NPPs not reduce the list of hazardous factors involved, it actually increases them. This refers primarily to dangers as a result of NPP usage in everyday and emergency regimes. During lifetime extension, the reliability of systems and mechanisms cannot be guaranteed at the same level as new equipment. Moreover, older Russian reactors have inherent design failures, which are impossible to remove during life span extension work, as it would not be financially feasible.
Proponents of lifetime extension say that it is economically feasible. Bellona believes that Rosatom simply has no funds to decommission the older NPPs, and thus finds questionable compromises with safety.
The inherent problems of nuclear energy, such as the management of spent nuclear fuel, remain largely unresolved.
Finally, there can be no doubt that NPP engineered lifetime extensions are taking place in breach of Russian legislation.

Introduction
The Russian Federal Nuclear Agency (Rosatom, formerly Minatom), has decided to extend the operation of nuclear power plants (NPPs) that have surpassed their projected-engineered life spans. Many scientists, experts and NGOs maintain that such practice by Rosatom is economically unjustifiable, environmentally dangerous – to say nothing of illegal. The Russian nuclear industry, however, argues that the lifetime extensions are justified because:
The original estimate of a 30-year life span for current NPPs was conservative;
Large-scale upgrades during the designed life spans have been carried out; and
The financial costs of lifetime extension are significantly less than those of constructing new reactors.
The level of atmospheric pollution caused by NPP operation is incomparably lower than that of burning fossil fuels. However, for society, politicians, economists and other experts, there are other, much more pressing factors that effectively undermine all the supposed benefits of developing nuclear energy. These are: (1) the risk of proliferation of weapons-usable nuclear material; (2) severe hazards of potential accidents; and (3) the still unresolved issue of spent nuclear fuel (SNF) and highly radioactive waste (HRW) management.
In this position paper, Bellona examines the safety, economic and legal aspects of the lifetime extension practice at Russian NPPs and verifies the validity of Rosatom’s pro-extension argumentation.

Nuclear energy in Russia
During the reform of Russia’s nuclear energy sector in 2004, the Russian government created Rosenergoatom, the state monopoly operating nuclear power plants. Rosenergoatom data shows that 10 NPPs are currently active in Russia. They comprise 31 reactors with a total capacity of 22.2 gigawatts (GWt) and supply approximately 16 percent of the country’s energy demand at a cost of approximately EUR 0.1 per kilowatt hour (about 13-15 percent lower than the average tariff for energy from thermal power stations in Russia).

Under the “optimal” variant laid out in the “Development Strategy for Russian Nuclear Energy in the First Half of the 21st Century,” 39 nuclear reactors will be built by 2020, which – given that 12 reactors will have been taken out of service – will increase total generating capacity up to 52.6 GWt. [1]

Between 2000 and 2005, two reactors were brought online, in contrast to planned number of five. Construction of another reactor, at the Volgodonsk NPP, could be completed by 2010. Total generating power over the decade will grow by three, or, at best four GWt, instead of the planned 10.8 GWt. Thus, it is obvious that the development of nuclear energy in Russia is already far from following the “optimal” version as planned in the strategy.

In recent statements, however, Russian President Vladimir Putin reiterated that the goal for the nuclear share in the country’s energy sector is still 25 percent by the year 2030. Sergey Kirienko, head of the Russian Nuclear Energy Agency, replied by laying-out a plan to start construction of two reactor units per year starting in 2007, and three to four reactor units per year staring in 2009-2010.
Extending the reactors’ engineered life spans
Concurrent to finishing construction of new reactors, Russia is prolonging the service life of functional first-generation EGP-6, VVER-440 and RBMK-1000 type reactors by up to 15 years, and plans to move to a 15+30 (where 15 is the extended life span in years and 30 years is the engineered life span) scheme in the future. In particular:
By the end of 2005, engineered life span extension work had been completed at seven first-generation NPP reactors;
Between 2005 and 2008, Rosenergoatom plans to complete engineered life span extension work at four more NPP reactors whose projected service life runs out in 2006; and
Between 2005 and 2008, Rosenergoatom plans to carry out engineered life span extension preparation work at another eight NPP reactors whose service life runs out after 2008 (up to 2013).
Detailed information on these reactors can be found in Annex 1.

Specificities of, and dangers associated with, the process of extending the engineered life spans of nuclear power plants
Based on definitions in legal documents, an NPP reactor unit is the part of a nuclear plant comprising the nuclear reactor itself, radiation sources, nuclear material and radioactive substance storage points, and waste storage. Therefore, extending the working life of NPP reactors also includes constructing or upgrading of the above-mentioned facilities. A decision on extending the engineered life span of a reactor, or on decommissioning it, must be taken five years before the end of the reactor’s original projected-engineered life span.

Extending an NPP’s lifetime beyond its engineered life span is inherently dangerous, in particular because certain parts are irreplaceable and because of the unresolved issues of spent nuclear fuel (SNF) and highly radioactive waste (HRW) management.

Indeed, during engineered life span extension projects, the components in need of replacement, and those that can serve further, if maintained regularly, are determined. Some parts of a reactor – including the reactor casing and its internal elements and constructions, the graphite stack (found in RBMK reactors), primary coolant circuits, primary coolant pumps and biological shield systems – are irreplaceable. The non-replaceable parts are crucial for the safe operation of a reactor, and of first generation reactors in particular.

In the case of the Kola NPP, for example, it would be necessary to replace the reactor casing in order to ensure safer operation. In addition, the proximity of the fuel assemblies to the steel walls in the VVER-440 reactor tank – such as those used at the two first units at Kola NPP – results in higher neutron irradiation than in other types of reactors, such that the walls of the VVER-440 become brittle at a higher pace than normal [2] .

As can be seen from the legal requirements mentioned above, the life span extension procedure affects not just reactors and associated systems, but the whole system of handling SNF and nuclear waste at NPPs. Accounts published in the press and official documents on extending the engineered life spans of the Leningrad, Kola and other NPPs mainly deal with work carried out on reactors and associated systems. Bellona has information that shows that SNF storage facilities at all Russian NPPs operating RBMK-type reactors, and the Leningrad NPP in particular, are in critical condition [3] . At present, the Leningrad NPP does not meet one of the main requirements for a storage facility, namely that its construction should allow unloading of any pool at any moment to carry out emergency work.

Bellona data also show that SNF problems at the Bilibino NPP, operating EGP type reactors, are even more acute than at the Leningrad NPP. RBMK and EGP reactor type fuel cannot be reprocessed; it therefore remains in on-site storage facilities. Rosatom’s decision to increase the capacity of on-site storage by doubling the number of fuel assemblies that storage brackets can hold is hazardous and does not resolve the issue of storing SNF for the time span by which the NPP’s life is being extended.

The economics of nuclear power and lifetime extension
The cost of a new reactor at Finland’s Olkiluoto NPP, to be built by Framatome, comes to EUR 3 billion. This is three-and-a-half to seven times higher than the investment in construction of a new thermal power plant with gas turbines, which, in addition, could be brought online three to four times more quickly than a nuclear plant.

In Russia the prices tags are also high. Spending on the completion of the fifth reactor at the Kursk NPP (EUR 560 million for 75 percent of construction) and the experience of the third reactor at the Kalinin NPP (EUR 825 million against estimates of EUR 225 million) are convincing evidence that capital investment will reach at least EUR 1.2 to EUR 1.3 billion per GWt in the Russian Federation.

But investors, including the state, would find that investing money in the development of nuclear energy is far from the best option for their capital, because of:

The much slower turn-around of invested capital;
High sensitivity to political risks; and
The burden on the nuclear sector of deferred capital expenditure, decisions regarding the handling of SNF, radioactive waste and decommissioning of NPPs.
Recently, Rosatom has re-evaluated its strategy several times, and in the next 25 years intends to use Russian gas giant Gazprom’s money to build up to 40 new reactors costing EUR 1.4 million each. But Rosatom’s initiative to attract investment from Gazprom has been received by both Gazprom managers and experts without enthusiasm. For example, a number of Gazprom managers say that the construction of NPPs is currently ineffective because they are very expensive and inflexible to run, and create a permanent burden. Most likely, the question of investment in the nuclear sector will remain open for the time being, and will be resolved only when politicians move it from the field of economics to politics, which is quite likely.

To make the life span extension viable for RMBK reactors, it was calculated that the investments should not exceed a certain sum. However, Bellona’s data show that this number has at least doubled during the lifetime extension projects, which makes the whole idea not only unsafe but also not viable economically. [4]

Western aid
Since the beginning of the 1990s, western governments have doled out billions of dollars on extensive programmes to upgrade the safety of Russian nuclear reactors so that they could operate safely until their operational life spans expired. In practice, this has unfortunately resulted in a situation where most of the older first generation reactors were granted 15 additional years to operate.

Legal regulation of the engineered life span extension at NPPs
The legality of NPPs’ engineered life span extensions has caused heated discussions both in civil society and among experts and has even been the subject of court cases. The important question raised during the heated debate is whether the state environmental expert assessments need to be carried out during the lifetime extension of NPPs.

Point 5.1.14 of general safety regulation (OPB-88/77) states that the organisation operating an NPP may raise the issue of extending an NPP reactor’s engineered life span. In this case, a new license for the operation of an NPP reactor must be obtained from Gostekhnadzor, the federal nuclear oversight agency, under the established legal procedure. The procedure and conditions for licensing are set out in the Regulations on Licensing Activities in the Sphere of Nuclear Power Usage. Under Article 12 of these regulations, an NPP operating body must present the conclusions of a state environmental expert assessment, along with other documents. There is no other legal documentation requirements. There is therefore no question that a state environmental expert assessment should be carried out during the life span extension process. Under Article 19 of the federal law “On State Environmental Expert Assessments,” citizens and civil society organisations have the right to information on the results of these assessments. In addition, the general public can organise social environmental expert assessments if information on the object of the assessment is not classified as a state, commercial, or other type of secret.

The accusations levelled against the nuclear industry regarding illegal NPP reactor engineering life span extensions are therefore fully justified. None of the reactors that received life span extension have undergone any environmental expert assessment.

Interesting, this “news flash” of RV’s. Of course, being the average Western dolt that he is, submitting a “news flash” just means spouting a piece of preposterous tripe learned by rote from on high. That’s exactly what Western media is all about. But let’s take RV seriously here, just for the fun of it.

>> When public is opposed to something, politicians in normal countries cannot proceed >>

Don’t bother asking me any questions, I am not going to answer, now or ever. I am not interested in talking to you. Get your answers from your commissar when your cell meets to discuss the best ways of building a Stalinist society.

Andrew,
I honestly don’t know why you waste your good time and effort on troll Dimwit(ry). Who lives blissfully in his ignorant Chekist fool’s paradise!

If this is the best that Putin can come up for a mouthpiece, then ruSSia has a real problem. Roll on neo soviet ruSSian “Doomsday” as under Putin’s dictatorship the latest USSR is repeating itself and heading for a gigantic and most certainly permanent demise this time round.

Sadly, in the new Russia that will rise out of these ashes, Dimwit(ry) will not be out of a job as his fantasy world will be put to good use in writing science fiction novels. where he excells!

Bohdan, your mother country is passing away right now. Those exact “values” you’d like to support did this to your country.

Ukraine’s population is less than 46M, down from 52M of Soviet times,

Ukraine’s GDP PPP is at the level of Sub-Saharan states.

Ukraine’s politics is a circus that even most nationalist Ukrainians despise.

As a Russian, I really want to see Ukraine much more successful and wealthy than it is now. And, as a Russian, I strongly object against Russia spending a dime to help that regime – by selling gas cheaply, by removing trade tariffs, whatever. We need that money for our own people here, and we need to stop supporting people murdering 1 million Ukrainians each 3 years.

What I really want is Ukrainian people to become responsible for their own fate and decide for themselves, either they want to die out like this, ruled by Soros, 6M in 20 years, and live in a banana republic, or they want to be really independent.

And I definitely need no posts about “grandeur” and “intelligence” from you, a person that can’t even understand what a catastrophe these two decades were for Ukraine.

Excuse me Dtard, but did you actually read the report?
I know you are to sub-simian to actually read, but come on….

﻿3.) The shelling of Tskhinvali by the Georgian armed forces during the night of 7 to 8 August 2008 marked the beginning of the large-scale armed conflict in Georgia, yet it was only the culminating point of a long period of increasing tensions, provocations and incidents. Indeed, the conflict has deep roots in the history of the region, in peoples’ national traditions and aspirations as well as in age-old perceptions or rather misperceptions of each other, which were never mended and sometimes exploited. While the region had also known a long tradition of peaceful cohabitation of different nations and creeds, there were among its smaller nations underlying feelings of deprivation and of having been relegated to inferior status. Soviet federalism did not help to overcome latent antagonisms, and the chaotic period that followed the break-up of the Soviet Union further added to a pattern of mutual mistrust and even hostility in the region. The wave of newly-found self-consciousness that followed political changes in Georgia since the end of 2003 clashed with another wave of assertiveness emanating from the Russian Federation, which tried to establish a privileged zone of interest in its “near abroad”, where
developments and events thought to be detrimental to Russia´s interests were not easily accepted. At the same time, the peacekeeping arrangements that were established with the help of the international community were increasingly outrun by new and more threatening
developments in the political and military situation. They had been set up in the 1990s after the armed conflicts in Abkhazia and South Ossetia in the wake of Georgian ﻿independence and since then had remained more or less unchanged. Without the adjustments and political support that the international organisations present in the region would have needed, they finally lost their grip and could no longer fulfil their intended functions.

13.) The ever-mounting tensions in the conflict zone were approaching the level of open military confrontation. Already in spring 2008, a critical worsening of the situation in the Georgian-Abkhaz conflict zone could be observed. One of the sources of tension was the﻿intensification of air activities over the zone of conflict, including flights over the ceasefire
line both by jet fighters and by unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs). A number of Georgian UAVs were reportedly shot down by Abkhaz and Russian forces. In April 2008, the Russian-staffed CIS PKF was reinforced by additional troops and in late May 2008, a Russian military railway unit was sent to Abkhazia to rehabilitate the local railway,
allegedly for humanitarian purposes, in spite of Georgian protests. The spring events were followed in summer 2008 by bombings of public places on the Abkhaz side of the ceasefire line, as well as roadside explosions on the Georgian side. In the course of summer 2008, the main focus of tension then shifted from the Georgian-Abkhaz to the
Georgian-Ossetian conflict zone, triggered by subversive attacks as well as by intensified exchanges of fire between the Georgian and South Ossetian sides, including mortar and heavy artillery fire. In early July the conflict already seemed on the verge of outbreak as
diplomatic action intensified at the same time. In mid-July, a yearly US-led military exercise called “Immediate Response” took place at the Vaziani base outside Tbilisi, involving approximately 2 000 troops from Georgia, the United Sates, Armenia, Azerbaijan and Ukraine. During the period of 15 July – 2 August 2008, Russian troops carried out large-scale training exercises in the North Caucasus Military District, close to the Russian-Georgian border as well as on the Black Sea. In early August, the South
Ossetian authorities started to evacuate their civilian population to locations on the territory of the Russian Federation. Indeed, the stage seemed all set for a military conflict.

And so on and so forth.
It goes on to condemn numerous Russian provocations, and labels illegal all of Russia’s actions.

Of course he didn’t read it, just as the lazy and stupid journos didn’t.

But it’s REALLY stupid how a retarded journalist reads: “not justified”, and then writes: “Russia’s initial actions in fighting back against attacks on its personnel in South Ossetia were justified” and will be paid, and won’t get fired, and it won’t be changed, and thousands of people will read it.

Actually, the report is damning Georgia in one point ONLY:

It said the initial offensive was disproportionate (because Georgian armed forces absolutely had the right to use force, but only proportionately to the scale of the rebel attacks – and so “the Georgian military operations were to a large extent not necessary and proportionate to repulse South Ossetian attacks, and were therefore not justified as self-defence”) and indiscriminate (but not nearly as much as in the Russian fairy tale).

That’s all. Of course it’s also pot-and-kettle situation (thousands of people actually killed in the shelling and bombing of Grozny – mentioned in the report too: “Russia had suppressed its own case of separatism in Chechnya with a maximum of military violence and had refused external criticism in regard to massive human rights violations during the Chechen wars as interference in its sovereignty”). And anyway regarding this:

“Thus the question of who was responsible for the 2008 August armed conflict cannot be focused solely on the night from 7 to 8 August and the Georgian offensive against Tskhinvali. It has to include a broader run-up to the conflict, a longer process comprising mutual accusations, military threats, violent incidents in conflict zones, acts of a great power’s coercive policy toward an insubordinate neighbour, this neighbour’s unrealistically accelerated policy of reintegration and presenting its Western-oriented foreign and security policies as “fleeing the Russian Empire”.”

Now, for example about the Russian politics before the war (just the names of the sections in one chapter) – “increasing tensions, provocations and incidents”, here’s about the criminal violations of Georgian sovereignity by Moscow during the peacetime due to “Passportisation” (that also resulted later in the “Russian citizens” justification attempt, which was of course also rejected):

And here are the chapter names regarding the “western front” aggression and the reb-Rus lies in attemts to justify it:

II. Legal qualification of the Abkhaz and Russian offensive: violation of the prohibition of the use of force and armed attack on Georgia
III. Legal qualification of the Georgian operation: self-defence 291
IV. No justification of the Abkhaz and Russian use of force against Georgia 291
1. Argumentation by Abkhazia and Russia 291
2. No previous “armed attack” by Georgia 293
a) No Georgian military operation in the Kodori Valley by Georgia 293
b) No preceding terrorist attacks sponsored by Georgia 293
c) No imminent armed attack on Abkhazia as a whole by Georgia 293

Here it was also all reb-Rus lies.

If journalists were not stupid, or lazy, or had good intentions, they would just check the chapter names in the report, before writing stupid things. They would write about all the Russian lies about the conflict (from “genocide” to “terrorist attacks”), and aggresive and illegal policies even before the conflict, about how the Russians military actions were not justified at all and illegal, about how the ethnic cleansing of Georgians was confirmed, about the illegal occupation was condemned, and so on.

Let’s name some more “useful idiots” not intelligent enough to read the report:

1) NATO officials interviewed by Der Spiegel believed that the Georgians had started the conflict.

2) Western intelligence agencies, quoted by Der Spiegel, believed that Russian troops from North Ossetia did not begin marching through the Roki Tunnel until roughly 11 am on 8 August.

3) Wolfgang Richer, a military expert to the German OSCE mission, said that he could find no evidence to support Saakashvili’s claim that the Russians had sent troops through the Roki Tunnel before the Georgian attack

4) OSCE monitor mission chief accused Georgia of attacking “a city as a city” and starting a war, not being provoked to do so.

5) Irakli Okruashvili, who served as Defense Minister of Georgia,…
6) George Friedman, US politician, military analyst, and a CEO of a US-based think-tank Stratfor,…
7) Oksana Antonenko , a Senior Fellow of the British International Institute for Strategic Studies …
8) Roy Allison, of the UK-based Chatham House, co wrote in International Affairs…
9) Asbed Kotchikian of ISN Security Watch…
10) an editorial in the International Herald Tribune:…
11) Professor of International Affairs and Government at Georgetown University, previously a Chairman of the Faculty of the Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service…
12) the Moscow Defence Brief…

The world is full of “useful idiots”, huh, Bobby?

But Bobby and Andrew are sooo right Georgia did not start the war, and the world did not understood Tagliavini, of course:))

“I have never said there was no provocation by the South Ossetians,” said Mr. Grist, who was OSCE deputy mission chief in Georgia. Official OSCE reporting said a unilateral cease-fire Georgia declared on Aug. 7 was broken around 10 p.m., nearly two hours before the Georgian artillery assault on Tskhinvali, the South Ossetian capital. “What I have said is that the response from the Georgian authorities was absolutely disproportionate,” said Mr. Grist. “To react with indiscriminate shelling — there just had to be a Russian response.”

But of course Dtard, being a sub simian retard, also thinks he knows better than those who wrote the report on the war when they said

“Thus the question of who was responsible for the 2008 August armed conflict cannot be focused solely on the night from 7 to 8 August and the Georgian offensive against Tskhinvali. It has to include a broader run-up to the conflict, a longer process comprising mutual accusations, military threats, violent incidents in conflict zones, acts of a great power’s coercive policy toward an insubordinate neighbour, this neighbour’s unrealistically accelerated policy of reintegration and presenting its Western-oriented foreign and security policies as “fleeing the Russian Empire”.

And so on… Too long a list to write every source here, but if you have doubts about any of the points, ask and I will post links.

As to Grist, you posted the wrong excerpt from the WSJ article. The right one is here:

“Georgia began pulling thousands of troops and equipment toward Tskhinvali on Thursday, Aug. 7. But with a cease-fire in place, Mr. Grist, who was in Tbilisi, says he thought it was safe to let three OSCE monitors stay in the town. By midnight, Georgian artillery was raining down on Tskhinvali. The OSCE office was hit; the monitors were in the basement. Friday morning, Ms. Hakala called the Finnish major leading the team and ordered them to evacuate as soon as possible.”

You actually bombed an OSCE mission – just like peacekeepers barracks.

Oh and sub simian, you forgot to mention that the report acknowledges that the Russians allowed armed North Caucasian “volunteers” to pass through the tunnel in large numbers prior to the main fighting breaking out, that there were Russian troops in South Ossetia illegally but that the numbers and extent could “not be confirmed at this time”:

﻿However, there are a number of reports and publications,
including of Russian origin, indicating the provision by the Russian side of training and military equipment to South Ossetian and Abkhaz forces prior to the August 2008 conflict. They also indicated an influx of irregular forces from the territory of the Russian Federation to South Ossetia in early August as well as the presence of some Russian forces in South
Ossetia, apart from the Russian PKF battalion, prior to 14.30 hours on 8 August 2008. Also, it seems that the Russian air force started its operations against Georgian targets, including those outside South Ossetian administrative boundaries, already in the morning of
8 August, i.e. prior to the time given in the Russian official information.

“Russians allowed armed North Caucasian “volunteers” to pass through the tunnel”

Sure, you Georgians would have probably asked them in July if they are going to fight Georgians when they would be attacked by Georgia in August. And then, if the answer is positive, just ask them to not cross the border into South Ossetia, right?:)

Sad, but Russians did not know Georgians are going to attack, so they did not ask this question. So every person that had a right of passage into S.Osetia passed.

What’s worse, the arms Georgian army has right now/ had before the war were mostly “provided by Russians”, 90% of them. Tanks, what used to be your air force, everything. As well as your servecemen,most of your high commanders were trained by Russians. If you think that Georgians are trained by Russian military education system, but Abkhaz are somehow trained on the other side of the world, you’re definitely wrong. There’s only one school of military science in this part of the world.

Ah, they were “armed” volunteers, do Russians really let men with military equipment pass over the border that easily? And the report clearly states that there were Russian troops deployed on Georgia’s borders well before July in anticipation.

DIMA. Would you stop clowning around? Would you talk for a moment like if you were NOT an idiot kid? Look, I’m trying to treat you seriously, I know I shouldn’t.

Also no, the arms and training were Soviet, and even Russia uses arms that were produced in Georgia (such as the Su-25s made by Tbilisi Aircraft Manufacturing). But this “only one school of military science in this part of the world” doesn’t even exist anymore, for 2 decades now.

What are even talking about? Putting some random list of names without any explaination or any sources (such as http://www.ceiig.ch/ which is a primary source to the IIFFMCG report), and smiling when told how the Russian lies were exposed. You were also lied to, such as the lie of the make-believe “Russian citizens”, and the lie of their “genocide”, and the lie how they had to be “rescued”, and the lie how it was “justified”, at all, in any way (various Russian excuses, not even one was valid).

Are you really happy about the lies for which the real Russians actually died? If you are even really a Russian, and not a dog on the Internet, but let’s say you are. Are your really so cynical? If I was a Russian, I’d be outraged. But I’d be also very angry about many more of the things you think are normal. I’d not be able to live in such a country based on lies and violence, and institutionalised corruption. I’d either emigrate or else, and this “else” possibly including even taking arms, if it would take to the point they started shooting at the protesters (again). Seems that even I’m a better Russian patriot than you are. You’re not even a man. You’re a dog. You are nothing.

Ah. So I wrote two long posts for you, with a lot of things for you to think about, and some question to answer (if not just rhetorical), and you answered… with the very same oddly-written list, copy-pasted from somewhere.

OK, you’re evidently just not interested in truth, you’re either so brainwashed, cynical, or trolling, and I need to just ignore you and stop wasting my time.

Bobby, the lies that caused the war were “democratization” of Georgia by Soros, that led to 95% of Georgian parliament, police, army, sakrebulos, every major political post in the country controlled by one man.

Than theree was a lie by that man that Russian army has “rusty tanks” and will be defeated by georgians during several days.

Then there was a lie by this man that he will “resyore Georgia” and that people in S.Ossetia and Abkhazia actually want to see Georgians coming.

That are the disgusting lies that caused the war.

That is the truth you are not interested about – though you can read articles about every of those lies in every respectable source, Russian, Western, whatever.

I can understand your mishist position when you’ll say BBC was just bought by the KGB.

Report says the Georgia started unjustified war, just in several sentences, not in one. Quotes from the report:

pages 19-21, part I:

“The shelling of Tskhinvali by the Georgian armed forces during the night of 7 to 8 August 2008 marked the beginning of the large-scale armed conflict in Georgia,”
“There is the question of whether [this] use of force… was justifiable under international law. It was not.”

On the example of Russia allowing armed volunteers to go to South Ossetia to kill Georgian civilians, well there had been ongoing low-intensity warfare since June:

The rising tension in South Ossetia in the period of June-early August 2008, which was characterized by some analysts as a low-intensity war, culminated in a large-scale Georgian military operation against the South Ossetian capital of Tskhinvali and the surrounding areas, undertaken in the night of 7-8 August 2008.

So scumbag, why were the Russians allowing armed volunteers to cross the border?

The shelling of Tskhinvali by the Georgian armed forces during the night of 7 to 8 August 2008 marked the beginning of the large-scale armed conflict in Georgia, yet it was only the culminating point of a long period of increasing tensions, provocations and incidents.

Those “provocations and incidents” are listed in the report, are almost entirely Russian and separatist, and are all illegal.

As to the attack on Tshkinvali, as the report clearly states, the Georgians had every right to retaliate, however they exceeded what is considered to be “proportionality” in their retaliation (which was however very mild compared to what Russia did in both Chechnya and to Georgia)

﻿To the extent that the attacks on Georgian villages, police and peacekeepers were conducted by South Ossetian militia, self-defence in the form of on-the-spot reactions by Georgian troops was necessary and proportionate and thus justified under international law.

On the other hand, the offensive that started on 7 August, even if it were deemed necessary, was not proportionate to the only permissible aim, the defence against the on-going attacks from South Ossetia.

You need to read the whole thing sub-simian.

And also it points out that even the initial Russian reaction could not be justified in fact, as there was no evidence supplied by Russia that it’s peacekeepers were targeted or actually suffered any casualties.

In addition, every single action by Russia has been deemed illegal under international law, from “passportisation” to military actions, to the recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia.

@“The shelling of Tskhinvali by the Georgian armed forces during the night of 7 to 8 August 2008 marked the beginning of the large-scale armed conflict in Georgia,”

Folowed by: “yet it was only the culminating point of a long period of increasing tensions, provocations and incidents.” As I already wrote.

@“There is the question of whether [this] use of force… was justifiable under international law. It was not.”

Yes. And, as I already wrote too, the same is about all the Russian use of force, with the sole exception of returning fire at the compound = everything else was, quote (said many times), “not justified” and “illegal”. These are chapter titles:

III. No justification of the use of force as self-defence
V. No justification of Russian use of force as fulfilment of the peacekeeping mission
V. No justification of the use of force by invitation of the South Ossetian authorities
VI. No justification of the use of force by collective self-defence
VII. No justification of the use of force as “humanitarian intervention”
VIII. No justification of the use of force as action to rescue and protect nationals abroad

Not a single chapter says there was justification of the Russia invasion, after alysing all of Russia’s excuses (the excuses for Abkhazia as well as the Black Sea were anlysed elsewhere, and the results were even more damning for Russia, as it was 100% completely unprovoked and all the Russiann claims were lies). “Unjustifed” war indeed. And really, if you don’t believe me, just CHECK THIS OUT YOURSELF! The main chapter is |Part 4: Use of force by Russia against Georgia”, so go and read it whole, or just the chapter summaries, or just check if the titles really say what I wrote, seriously.

And the rebels were also not justified in anything but in self-dense in “South Ossetia”, and not justified at all om Abkhazia (where their and Russia’s all excuses were lies, as I already wrote too).

I’m now reating you like a honest person that is not interested in truth (and not fanatical, or cynical, or evil, or just trolling). Maybe I shouldn’t.

“No justification of Russian use of force as fulfilment of the peacekeeping mission” is 4th section, (I didn’t copy “I” in IV).

The whole “Part 4: Use of force by Russia against Georgia” even begins as following (it’s on pages 263-264):

“I. Facts

Russia was involved in the conflict in several ways. First, Russian peacekeepers who were stationed in South Ossetia on the basis of the Sochi Agreement were involved in the fighting in Tskhinvali. Second, Russian regular troops were fighting in South Ossetia, Abkhazia and deeper in Georgian territory. Third, North Caucasian irregulars took part in the fighting. Finally, Russia supported Abkhaz and South Ossetian forces in many ways, especially by training, arming, equipping, financing and supporting them.

II. Legal qualification of the Russian involvement in the conflict

Under Art. 2(4) of the UN Charter and the parallel customary law, the military operations of the Russian army as described in Chapter 5 “Military Events of 2008”130 in the territory of Georgia (including South Ossetia and Abkhazia and elsewhere in Georgia) in August 2008 constituted a violation of the fundamental international legal prohibition of the use of force. The main legal issue is whether these activities could be justified as legally recognized exceptions.”

And is followed by this long string of “no justification” sections. For example, the very first is “III. No justification of the use of force as self-defence”.

Which means: “the military operations of the Russian army” really “constituted a violation of the fundamental international legal prohibition of the use of force”, violating international law (and there were also many other Russian violations – before, during and after the large-scale armed conflict).

Bobby, let’s just stop discussing it. I read the report. I know what it says. I know that it says that Georgian attacks on Tskhinval was the starting point of war, and it was not justified. I know it says initial Russian reaction *was* justified, but that Russia should have stopped on the borders of South Ossetia (the report was written by the EU officials, not soldiers).

I also know that a report that claims that Georgia – started – the – unjustified – war was prepared by states that were supporting Georgia since 2003 and that have quite opposite to Russian interests.

No moron, it is a pity you have the English comprehension of a slug, but we are not surprised by a subhuman performance by the likes of you Dtard.

The report states that the attack on Tshkinvali (get the name right, it is Georgian and means “place of the hornbeams” can be taken as the point where the main fighting broke out, but was merely the culmination of years of Russian provocations against Georgia. As the report says, Georgia over reacted to the provocations, and if it had used reciprocal military force against the attacks by the separatists (ie not used GRADS, but only 122mm mortars and 152mm artillery) it would have been legal.

Now how about you Russian vermin supporting Gaddafi firing GRADs into Misrata, or Assad firing them into Homs?

Funny how the Russian sub simians see those operations as entirely legitimate “defence of constitutional order” operations?

You are out of your mind. The Russian economy is TINY per capita, not even top 50, and average wages are miniscule. Inflation is rampant, capital flight is epidemic, and the economy (especially the stock market) depends TOTALLY on the price of oil as set by foreigners.

Well, I don’t know how to compare credibility, but is the International Monetary Fund good enough for you? It shows Russia as #53 with the GNP of $15,612 per capita as opposed to the World Bank’s figure of $19,840. And the Central Intelligence Agency shows Russia as #55 with the estimated GNP of $15,900.

You are misrepresenting the facts. Russia is #45 on the World Bank’s list, not #39. And yes, they don’t give the rank to the European Union or to Hong Kong or to Macau; if the did, Russia would be three spot lower.

Did you see the link to the world bank databank link I provided, and that is about 2009 or 2010, and not “2005-2010″?

Why do you throw these accusations of “misrepresenting” so easily?

According to the World Bank, Russian economy is #39 in the world or so by the GDP PPP, which looks like the second highest result among all ex-Soviet states, and higher than most of the EU Eastern European states.

Did you notice the last column in the table stating that it was for 2010? Did you notice a footnote next to (2005-2010) stating that the data are for 2010? Well, the world bank data are different from those of the IMF, and of course you choose a better one — Russian pride is the most important after all, and the facts, if they are in the way — well, who cares about the facts

Me lies, when says Russian GDP PPP is 19,8K USD, and provides a link,RV lies, when he tries to correct my estimate and says “Russia is #45 on the World Bank’s list”,World bank lies when it says Russian GDP PPP is 19,8K USD,

And the dearest LR is right and shining bright when she-he-it says “NUMBER FIFTY SEVEN” and – out of a sudden – starts to refer to a list of states by nominal GDP, and not real one.

You know why so many Swiss people started to buy houses in Spain? Why so many Americans say it’s expensive to travel to Europe?

Of course, you don’t:)

One could say it is a bad education in economics, but we all know she-he-it (which is you, dearest LR) is just stupid:)

P.S. Oh, and Internets lie when they say caps lock is no way to victory, rather a show of a bad mental health:)

Ah, another “Russia collapsing” story on LR. If you read conservative press, it seems China’s economy is collapsing. Somebody said India is on the verge of collapse. Brazil will collapse soon according to some economists. Of course we command LR on her efforts to “recycle”.

Andrew and others! To argue with Russians you need first to know their mentality, history and the deep historical roots of their delusional, maniac disorder and national psychological pathology. Otherwise you are wasting your time. Nobody ever could to proof anything to Russians. They are self sufficient, with the complex of superiority and grandiosity, paranoid nation, and with pathological, clinical narcisscism. So, leave this shit Dmitry alone and let him rot naturally without your enlightenment efforts.

La Russophobe’s article is an example of wishfuland and primitive thinking.
It can only convince an American. US educational system and the media promote idiocracy, i.e. anti intellectualism, continued lowering standards and stigmatizing intelligence. Even intelligent people in US, as if there were any left, do not understand even relatively sophisticated arguments because they do not expect to hear them on TV or radio. That’s why, for example, the idea FSB used Polonium to poison Litvinenko could fly in US and UK (US lapdogs are no better than the master). FSB apparently chose the most idiotic method of killing somebody, the only one which is traceable back to them by a simple Geiger counter.

This also explains why the CIA World Book of Facts lists Russian population barely at 138mln but calculates its per capita GDP as $16,700 based on roughly 143 mln population figure. Indeed, if you divide two figures given by the CIA, the $2.38 trillion as the total GDP by $16,700- as the per capita GDP, you will get 142.514 mln for the Russian population, a whooping 4.5 mln more than the 138 mln listed in the same CIA article. Actually, If one multiplies $16,700 by 143 mln, one would get $2.388 trillion which is very slightly less than the CIA listed $2.38 trillion number. I suspect, that the spy agency just cut the corners, rounding the correct figure off to $2.38 trillion.
The conclusion is CIA calculates Russian GDP per capita based on roughly 143mln population or (142.514mln to be precise) which gives a conveniently lower figure for the GDP per capita, but lists that population at 138mln nevertheless. In other words, CIA doesn’t believe its own lies, but expects you to.

On June 9, 2012 Huffington Post has reported that according to a Gallup/Harris poll, a full 37 percent of American citizens are incapable of identifying their home country on a map of the United States. What a fertile ground for a primitive propaganda!

Russia’s arms sales is an important factor in its economic prosperity, and it is a nice thing that Russian weapons, missiles and planes are vastly superior to their American counterparts. It is very clear that having air superiority is

decisive in a conventional war and may play a role

in a nuclear war as well. US 5th generation plane,

F-22A hwhich costs $360mln each has been

discontinued by the Senate in December 2011. It is

a flying disaster, which sustains a major

structural damage after just 1.7 hours flying time.

Also, it has to requires a 30 hours service time

after each 1 hour flight. Its armor so thin, it

can’t fly low because it can be shot through with

small arms. Russian T-50, a 5th generation plane

has 400 km target location range, while F-22A’s one

is 200 km, which means the American plane will be

shot down by the Russian one before F-22A can even

locate the enemy. Another major problem of F-22A

(Raptor) is that it has to be in a strict no

communication electronics mode to continue to be

stealth. T-50 has no such limitations because it

actively suppresses the enemy radar systems. In

fact, the Russian stealth plane, T-50 and the 4++

generation plane SU-35, are superior to American

5th generation planesF-22A and F-35 in every way.
F-35 is also a flying disaster at $395mln a piece

NOTICE: This blog quotes from source material, and links to it. When a post contains quotes and original material, the quotes are in ordinary print and the original in boldface. See "About LR" in the title bar for copyright notice.

Supporting La Russophobe

La Russophobe does not solicit or accept financial support from any source. If you would like to show your support for LR and your opposition to the rise of dictatorship in Russia, the easiest way is to create a Digg or StumbleUpon or Delicious account and use it to favorite some of our posts. LR also welcomes your e-mail comments and submissions for publication, and we urge you to support the effort to boycott of the Sochi Olympics.